Greetings, On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 9 Oct 2009, at 08:10, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> While we did not manage to resolve the differences in the 'constituency' >> versus 'broad tent' approaches to the NCSG I think we did find some >> common ground in agreeing that there are definite flaws in the SIC >> proposal, >> not to mention process. > > > I very much appreciate the opportunity to listen in. And I think bringing > these protagonists together in one room was a great idea. I was happy to participate and thanks to ISOC-NY for enabling it. Perhaps ICANN could fast-track consensus on thorny issues if NCUC and Policy Staff were locked-up in a room at Seoul and told the key will only used to open the locked door only after they arrive at a consensus;) ? > > As for resolving the issues, I think if we bring a few more people into the > tent, like some of those on the chat session, we probably can find a way to > common ground. What we really need to count on is someone giving us the > time, space and resources to negotiate and work things out. ICANN should! As proof of inclusivity and on the Equity principle(unequal treatment of unequals) > > This is where the ICANN Policy staff needs to become an enabler for > resolution, as a support to us working out our differences as opposed to > acting as a champion for one side or another. This would be the greatest of > changes, one we yet have to see, but one which I hope the new CEO can > effect. Yes, they should be enablers not, even remotely, be perceived as undermining anyone. > I remain forever hopeful that the right conditions can prevail and that the > agreement can be reached. I still think that a coordinated set of civil > society groups can be a formidable force inside ICANN. Even if we never > will have the money the commercial side does. > We shall all be happy to then declare ICANN "fair" and "receptive" to everyone.